Real-World Use of Hypofractionated Radiotherapy for Primary CNS Tumors in the Elderly, and Implications on Medicare Spending.

BACKGROUND: For elderly patients with high-grade gliomas, 3-week hypofractionated radiotherapy (HFRT) is noninferior to standard long-course radiotherapy (LCRT). We analyzed real-world utilization of HFRT with and without systemic therapy in Medicare beneficiaries treated with RT for primary central nervous system (CNS) tumors using Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services data. METHODS: Radiation modality, year, age (65-74, 75-84, or ≥85 years), and site of care (freestanding vs hospital-affiliated) were evaluated. Utilization of HFRT (11-20 fractions) versus LCRT (21-30 or 31-40 fractions) and systemic therapy was evaluated by multivariable logistic regression. Medicare spending over the 90-day episode after RT planning initiation was analyzed using multivariable linear regression. RESULTS: From 2015 to 2019, a total of 10,702 RT courses (ie, episodes) were included (28% HFRT; 65% of patients aged 65-74 years). A considerable minority died within 90 days of RT planning initiation (n=1,251; 12%), and 765 (61%) of those received HFRT. HFRT utilization increased (24% in 2015 to 31% in 2019; odds ratio [OR], 1.2 per year; 95% CI, 1.1-1.2) and was associated with older age (≥85 vs 65-74 years; OR, 6.8; 95% CI, 5.5-8.4), death within 90 days of RT planning initiation (OR, 5.0; 95% CI, 4.4-5.8), hospital-affiliated sites (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.3-1.6), conventional external-beam RT (vs intensity-modulated RT; OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 2.3-3.1), and no systemic therapy (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.1-1.3; P<.001 for all). Increasing use of HFRT was concentrated in hospital-affiliated sites (P=.002 for interaction). Most patients (69%) received systemic therapy with no differences by site of care (P=.12). Systemic therapy utilization increased (67% in 2015 to 71% in 2019; OR, 1.1 per year; 95% CI, 1.0-1.1) and was less likely for older patients, patients who died within 90 days of RT planning initiation, those who received conventional external-beam RT, and those who received HFRT. HFRT significantly reduced spending compared with LCRT (adjusted ß for LCRT = +$8,649; 95% CI, $8,544-$8,755), whereas spending modestly increased with systemic therapy (adjusted ß for systemic therapy = +$270; 95% CI, $176-$365). CONCLUSIONS: Although most Medicare beneficiaries received LCRT for primary brain tumors, HFRT utilization increased in hospital-affiliated centers. Despite high-level evidence for elderly patients, discrepancy in HFRT implementation by site of care persists. Further investigation is needed to understand why patients with short survival may still receive LCRT, because this has major quality-of-life and Medicare spending implications.

Trends in Use of and Medicare Spending on Short-Course Radiotherapy for Lymphomas From 2015 to 2019.

This cross-sectional study uses Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services payment data to examine use of short-course radiotherapy from 2015 to 2019 among Medicare beneficiaries with indolent lymphoma.

Association between Site-of-Care and the Cost and Modality of Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer: Analysis of Medicare Beneficiaries from 2015 to 2017.

Among 84,447 radiotherapy (RT) courses for Medicare beneficiaries age ≥ 65 with prostate cancer treated with external beam RT (EBRT), brachytherapy, or both, 42,608 (51%) were delivered in hospital-affiliated and 41,695 (49%) in freestanding facilities. Freestanding centers were less likely to use EBRT + brachytherapy than EBRT (OR 0.84 [95%CI 0.84-0.84]; p < .001). Treatment was more costly in freestanding centers (mean difference $2,597 [95%CI $2,475-2,719]; p < .001). Adjusting for modality and fractionation, RT in hospital-affiliated centers was more costly (mean difference $773 [95%CI $693-853]; p < .001). Freestanding centers utilized more expensive RT delivery, but factors unrelated to RT modality or fractionation rendered RT more costly at hospital-affiliated centers.

Opioid prescribing practices in patients undergoing surgery for oral cavity cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Opioids have been overprescribed after general and orthopedic surgeries, but prescribing patterns have not been reported for head and neck surgery. The objectives of this retrospective review are to describe postoperative opioid prescriptions after oral cancer surgery and determine which patients receive higher amounts. METHODS: A single institution retrospective review was performed for 81 adults with oral cavity tumors undergoing surgery. Opioid prescriptions upon discharge were reported in daily oral morphine equivalents (OME). High opioids were defined as > 90 mg daily and > 200 mg total, commensurate with U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention and state guidelines. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to investigate factors associated with high opioids. RESULTS: The median number of doses dispensed was 30 (interquartile range [IQR] 30-45; range 3-120). The median daily dose was 30 mg (IQR 20-45 mg; range 15-240 mg). Five patients (6%) received higher than the recommended daily dose. The median total dispensed amount was 225 mg (IQR 150-250 mg; range 15-1200 mg). Fifty-one (63%) received greater than the recommended total dose. On multivariable logistic regression, advanced tumor stage (odds ratio [OR] 11.5; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.2-109.4; P = 0.034) and inpatient pain scores (OR 1.3 per 1-unit increase; 95% CI 1.0-1.7; P = 0.039) were associated with receiving high total opioids after surgery. CONCLUSION: The majority of patients received greater than the recommended 200 mg total OME. Advanced stage and higher inpatient pain scores were associated with receiving more opioids for discharge. Consensus-driven analgesic plans are needed to reduce excess opioids after discharge following head and neck surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4. Laryngoscope, 128:2361-2366, 2018.

Positive Surgical Margins in the 10 Most Common Solid Cancers.

A positive surgical margin (PSM) following cancer resection oftentimes necessitates adjuvant treatments and carries significant financial and prognostic implications. We sought to compare PSM rates for the ten most common solid cancers in the United States, and to assess trends over time. Over 10 million patients were identified in the National Cancer Data Base from 1998-2012, and 6.5 million had surgical margin data. PSM rates were compared between two time periods, 1998-2002 and 2008-2012. PSM was positively correlated with tumor category and grade. Ovarian and prostate cancers had the highest PSM prevalence in women and men, respectively. The highest PSM rates for cancers affecting both genders were seen for oral cavity tumors. PSM rates for breast cancer and lung and bronchus cancer in both men and women declined over the study period. PSM increases were seen for bladder, colon and rectum, and kidney and renal pelvis cancers. This large-scale analysis appraises the magnitude of PSM in the United States in order to focus future efforts on improving oncologic surgical care with the goal of optimizing value and improving patient outcomes.

Image-guided surgery in cancer: A strategy to reduce incidence of positive surgical margins.

Primary treatment for many solid cancers includes surgical excision or radiation therapy, with or without the use of adjuvant therapy. This can include the addition of radiation and chemotherapy after primary surgical therapy, or the addition of chemotherapy and salvage surgery to primary radiation therapy. Both primary therapies, surgery and radiation, require precise anatomic localization of tumor. If tumor is not targeted adequately with initial treatment, disease recurrence may ensue, and if targeting is too broad, unnecessary morbidity may occur to nearby structures or remaining normal tissue. Fluorescence imaging using intraoperative contrast agents is a rapidly growing field for improving visualization in cancer surgery to facilitate resection in order to obtain negative margins. There are multiple strategies for tumor visualization based on antibodies against surface markers or ligands for receptors preferentially expressed in cancer. In this article, we review the incidence and clinical implications of positive surgical margins for some of the most common solid tumors. Within this context, we present the ongoing clinical and preclinical studies focused on the use of intraoperative contrast agents to improve surgical margins. This article is categorized under: Laboratory Methods and Technologies > Imaging.

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Nivolumab for Treatment of Platinum-Resistant Recurrent or Metastatic Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck.

Background: The CheckMate 141 trial found that nivolumab improved survival for patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck cancer (HNC). Despite the improved survival, nivolumab is much more expensive than standard therapies. This study assesses the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab for the treatment of HNC. Methods: We constructed a Markov model to simulate treatment with nivolumab or standard single-agent therapy for patients with recurrent or metastatic platinum-refractory HNC. Transition probabilities, including disease progression, survival, and probability of toxicity, were derived from clinical trial data, while costs (in 2017 US dollars) and health utilities were estimated from the literature. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), expressed as dollar per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), were calculated, with values of less than $100 000/QALY considered cost-effective from a health care payer perspective. We conducted one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to assess model uncertainty. Results: Our base case model found that treatment with nivolumab increased overall cost by $117 800 and improved effectiveness by 0.400 QALYs compared with standard therapy, leading to an ICER of $294 400/QALY. The model was most sensitive to the cost of nivolumab, though nivolumab only became cost-effective if the cost per cycle decreased from $13 432 to $3931. The model was not particularly sensitive to assumptions about survival. If one assumed that all patients alive at the end of the CheckMate 141 trial were cured of their disease, nivolumab was still not cost-effective (ICER $244 600/QALY). Conclusion: While nivolumab improves overall survival, at its current cost it would not be considered a cost-effective treatment option for patients with HNC.

Types and Distribution of Payments From Industry to Physicians in 2015.

IMPORTANCE: Given scrutiny over financial conflicts of interest in health care, it is important to understand the types and distribution of industry-related payments to physicians. OBJECTIVE: To determine the types and distribution of industry-related payments to physicians in 2015 and the association of physician specialty and sex with receipt of payments from industry. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Observational, retrospective, population-based study of licensed US physicians (per National Plan & Provider Enumeration System) linked to 2015 Open Payments reports of industry payments. A total of 933 295 allopathic and osteopathic physicians. Outcomes were compared across specialties (surgery, primary care, specialists, interventionalists) and between 620 166 male (66.4%) and 313 129 female (33.6%) physicians using regression models adjusting for geographic Medicare-spending region and sole proprietorship. EXPOSURES: Physician specialty and sex. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Reported physician payment from industry (including nature, number, and value), categorized as general payments (including consulting fees and food and beverage), ownership interests (including stock options, partnership shares), royalty or license payments, and research payments. Associations between physician characteristics and reported receipt of payment. RESULTS: In 2015, 449 864 of 933 295 physicians (133 842 [29.8%] women), representing approximately 48% of all US physicians were reported to have received $2.4 billion in industry payments, including approximately $1.8 billion for general payments, $544 million for ownership interests, and $75 million for research payments. Compared with 47.7% of primary care physicians (205 830 of 431 819), 61.0% of surgeons (110 604 of 181 372) were reported as receiving general payments (absolute difference, 13.3%; 95% CI, 13.1-13.6; odds ratio [OR], 1.72; P < .001). Surgeons had a mean per-physician reported payment value of $6879 (95% CI, $5895-$7862) vs $2227 (95% CI, $2141-$2314) among primary care physicians (absolute difference, $4651; 95% CI, $4014-$5288). After adjusting for geographic spending region and sole proprietorship, men within each specialty had a higher odds of receiving general payments than did women: surgery, 62.5% vs 56.5% (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.26-1.31); primary care, 50.9% vs 43.0% (OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.36-1.39); specialists, 36.3% vs 33.4% (OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.13-1.17); and interventionalists, 58.1% vs 40.7% (OR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.97-2.10; P < .001 for all tests). Similarly, men reportedly received more royalty or license payments than did women: surgery, 1.2% vs 0.03% (OR, 43.20; 95% CI, 25.02-74.57); primary care, 0.02% vs 0.002% (OR, 9.34; 95% CI, 4.11-21.23); specialists, 0.08% vs 0.01% (OR, 3.67; 95% CI, 1.71-7.89); and for interventionalists, 0.13% vs 0.04% (OR, 7.98; 95% CI, 2.87-22.19; P < .001 for all tests). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: According to data from 2015 Open Payments reports, 48% of physicians were reported to have received a total of $2.4 billion in industry-related payments, primarily general payments, with a higher likelihood and higher value of payments to physicians in surgical vs primary care specialties and to male vs female physicians.

Impact of Humanitarian Experiences on Otolaryngology Trainees: A Follow-up Study of Travel Grant Recipients.

In this study, we seek (1) to determine the impact of humanitarian experiences on otolaryngology trainee recipients of the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation humanitarian travel grant (2001-2015); (2) to better understand trainee and trip characteristics, as well as motivations and attitudes toward future volunteerism; and (3) and to identify potential barriers to participation. An anonymous 30-question survey was distributed to 207 individuals, and 52 (25.1%) responded. Respondents viewed the trip as very worthwhile (score = 98 of 100), expressed improved cultural understanding (75.0%), and continued participation in humanitarian activities (75.0%). Competency-based evaluation results suggest a positive impact on systems-based practice and professionalism. Respondents commented on the trip's positive value and shared concerns regarding expense. Despite potential barriers, Foundation-supported humanitarian trips during training are perceived as worthwhile; they may enhance cultural understanding and interest in future humanitarian efforts; and they may positively affect competency-based metrics. Based on the potential benefits, continued support and formalization of these experiences should be considered.